Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Sigh ... seeing more indecipherable regexes added to kernel-doc is like >> seeing another load of plastic bags dumped into the ocean... it doesn't >> change the basic situation, but it's still sad. >> >> Oh well, applied, thanks. > > Thanks. I have to say I feel the same... > > Regexes aren't great for parsing C, that's for sure. :-I But what are the > options? Write a proper parser for (a subset of) C? Every now and then I've pondered on this a bit. There are parsers out there, of course; we could consider using something like tree-sitter. There's just two little problems: - That's a massive dependency to drag into the docs build that seems unlikely to speed things up. - kernel-doc is really two parsers - one for C code, one for the comment syntax. Strangely, nobody has written a grammar for this combination. A suitably motivated developer could probably create a C+kerneldoc grammer that would let us make a rock-solid, tree-sitter-based parser that would be mostly maintained by somebody else. But that doesn't get us around the "adding a big dependency" problem. <back to work now...> jon
